Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
REINFORCED BEDS
A Thesis Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the degree of
Master of Technology
by
ARINDAM DEY
to the
by
ARINDAM DEY
To
Baba, Ma, Didi & Bhaiya
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the work contained in the thesis titled FLEXURAL RESPONSE
OF
FOUNDATION ON
REINFORCED
BEDS
by
ARINDAM
DEY
(Y3103010), has been carried out under my supervision and that this work has not
been submitted elsewhere for a degree.
P. K. BASUDHAR
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Kanpur 208016, India
ABSTRACT
ARINDAM DEY
Roll No. Y3103010
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
Kanpur 208016, India
Thesis Supervisor
Prof. P. K. BASUDHAR
May, 2005
ii)
The analysis developed is based on mechanical model. For the first problem the
compacted and loose sand beds are modeled with Winklers springs of different
stiffness values. In the second problem the compacted sand bed is modeled with
Winklers spring where as the clay layer is modeled by using Burgers four element
model consisting of springs and dash pots. The bending stiffness of the reinforcement
and variability of the soil modulus have been considered in the analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. P. K. Basudhar
for his involvement, motivation and encouragement throughout and beyond the thesis
work. His patient hearing, critical comments and approach to the research problem
made me do better every time. His valuable suggestions at all stages of the thesis
work helped me to improvise various sorts of shortcomings of my thesis work. I
express my sincere respect to him for his parental guidance throughout my period of
stay at IIT Kanpur.
I would like to express my sincere tribute to Prof. Sarvesh Chandra and Dr.
Nihar Ranjan Patra for their very friendly nature and treating more than as a student. I
would also like to express my sincere thanks due to their excellent guidance and
teaching during my stay at IIT Kanpur.
I would like to render special thanks to Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Gulab ji, Yadav
ji and Parashuram ji for their kind co-operation and for granting free access to all the
laboratory equipments and accessories as and whenever needed.
I would like to offer my special tribute to Kousik da for his immense help
throughout and beyond my thesis work and for his valuable and critical suggestions
like an elder brother. I am greatly thankful to my classmate, Paritosh Kumar, for his
friendly nature and immense help he rendered me by allowing me to use his PC
during my thesis work. I would like to thank all my friends, especially Abhik,
Pradipta, Bappaditya, Shyam, Meera, Sutapa, Trishikhi, Antara, Samaresh,
Subhotosh, Saikat, Kaustav, Bisu, Dipanjan da, Dip da, Anurag, Deepak, Pradeep,
Brijesh, Col. Saxena, Sourav, Anuj and Waseem and all others who made my stay a
very joyous, pleasant and memorable one and made me feel to be within a family. I
would also like express special thanks to Priti di, Sarat da and Shanker da for their
valuable suggestions regarding my thesis work.
Last but not the least, I would like to offer my cordial homage to my Baba and
Ma for all the hardships and sufferings they had to bear during my distant stay from
home. I like to pay my tribute to them for their blessings, encouragement and
motivation throughout my academic career. I would like to deeply thank my Didi and
Bhaiya for their immense and unlimited moral support and encouragement which
helped me keep up my stamina and will power throughout my stay at IIT Kanpur and
throughout my academic career.
ARINDAM DEY
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
LIST OF TABLES
xix
NOTATIONS
xxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.2
1.3
CHAPTER 2
30
MODELING OF FOUNDATIONS ON
REINFORCED SAND BEDS WITH
VARIABLE SUBGRADE MODULUS
33
2.1
Introduction
33
2.2
34
2.3
Analysis
36
2.3.1 Assumptions
36
36
38
39
41
2.4
42
42
44
44
44
46
47
49
49
52
53
54
56
56
2.5
Conclusion
59
2.6
62
CHAPTER 3
MODELING OF FOUNDATIONS ON A
COMPACTED SAND BED UNDERLAIN
BY A WEAK CLAY STRATA WITH
REINFORCEMENT PLACED AT THE
INTERFACE
65
3.1
Introduction
65
3.2
66
3.3
Analysis
68
3.3.1 Assumptions
68
68
71
72
74
75
75
3.4
77
79
80
82
84
85
87
88
90
91
93
Conclusion
3.6
95
96
98
101
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1
Winkler Model.
1.2
1.3
Pasternak Model.
1.4
Hetenyi Model.
1.5
Vlasov Model.
1.6
Kerr Model.
1.7
26
1.8
26
1.9
27
1.10
28
1.11
28
1.12
29
1.13
29
2.1
35
2.2
35
2.3
43
2.4
43
2.5
45
2.6
46
2.7
48
2.8
48
2.9
50
2.10
50
2.11
51
2.12
51
2.13
52
2.14
53
2.15
54
2.16
55
2.17
55
2.18
56
2.19
57
2.20
58
2.21
58
2.22
59
2.23
62
2.24
63
2.25
63
2.26
64
3.1
67
3.2
67
3.3
69
3.4
76
3.5
76
3.6
Comparison of the degenerated cases of elastic and viscoelastic models of the present study.
78
3.7
79
3.8
81
3.9
81
3.10
83
3.11
83
3.12
84
3.13
85
3.14
86
3.15
86
3.16
87
3.17
88
3.18
89
3.19
89
3.20
90
3.21
91
3.22
92
3.23
92
3.24
93
3.25
94
3.26
94
3.27
95
3.28
96
3.29
97
3.30
97
A.1
111
A.2
112
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.1
21
2.1
47
3.1
80
NOTATIONS
Ci
E1 I 1
E2 I 2
F, Fn
F1 , F2 , F3 , F4 ,
F 5 , F6 , F7
Normalized length
R1
R2
Rc
Rn
k1(x)
k10
k11n, k12n
k1n
k2(x)
k20
k21, k22
k21n, k22n
k2n
kb1, kb2
kb2n
kk
kn
kr
l1
l2
ln
nb
nr
p1
p2
tpc
xn
y1
y1
y2
y2
1, 2
Coefficient of friction
, 1, 2
xn
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
Soil-structure interaction is one of the most interesting and widely studied
springs and dash pots arranged in various configurations) and continuum mechanics
approach (both analytical and numerical). The different approaches has their own
merits and demerits but have served very well the profession in understanding and
predicting the performance of such foundations. These have also enabled the
engineers to evaluate the effect of various parameters on the foundation response. The
basic problem of lumped parameter models (even though quite simple to use) lies in
the fact that the parameters involved are not fundamental parameters like modulus of
elasticity and Poisson ratio (used in the theory of elasticity approach treating the
medium to be a continuum) and are difficult to determine. Continuum mechanics
approach using either theory of elasticity or mathematical plasticity is quite complex
and difficult to use. However, application of finite element method (either direct
formulation or variational formulation) has enabled the engineers to solve very
complicated problems but it is not used as widely as the limit equilibrium and lumped
parameter based models. With the limit equilibrium based methods stability of
foundations can be analyzed but it can not be used to predict displacements, where as,
displacements also can be predicted with the help of lumped parameter models. But
lumped parameter models are incapable of predicting the stresses and displacements
at all place within the concerned medium except at the interface between the soil and
the structural members. In this respect continuum mechanics based models are
superior. However, from the point of simplicity and at the same time due to its
capability in predicting displacements, it has been decided to use a lumped parameter
model in the present study.
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Winkler Model.
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
Pasternak Model.
Hetenyi model
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Vlasov Model.
Kerr Model.
1.2
such, the literature covered by her are not reviewed here and only the additional
references are cited and discussed. However, for the sake of completeness all the
papers (including the papers cited by Maheshwari) are summarized subsequently.
Maheshwari (2004) referred to the following papers in her thesis. These are:
Binquet & Lee (1975), Brown & Poulos (1981), Giroud & Noiray (1981), Andrawes
et al. (1982), Madhav & Poorooshasb (1988), Bourdeau (1989), Poran et al. (1989),
Sellmeijer (1990), Poorooshasb (1991), Dixit & Mandal (1993), Ghosh & Madhav
(1994 a, b, c), Shukla & Chandra (1994 a, b, c), Shukla & Chandra (1995), Yin (1997
a, b), Yin (2000), Fakher and Jones (2001), Kotake et al. (2001) .The additional
papers are cited and discussed as follows.
Kondner (1963) proposed a two constant hyperbolic form of stress-strain
response for modeling of soil behavior for load-deformation analysis of foundations.
The response used was such that the ultimate shear strength of the soil is contained
within the general formulation and appeared as a mathematical limit when the stress
became excessive. This represented a remolded cohesive soil tested in consolidatedundrained triaxial compression. The variables in the hyperbolic stress-strain relation
included the preconsolidation pressure, rebound stress, lateral pressure during the test,
vertical normal stress, strain and the rate of strain. The history effects were included
in terms of overconsolidation ratio. It was observed that the proposed failure relations
degenerated into the conventional Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope in a twodimensional stress space. The two constants of hyperbola were designated as a (the
reciprocal of the initial tangent modulus, EI), and b (the reciprocal of the asymptotic
value of stress difference which the stress-strain curve approaches at infinite strain).
Desai (1971) presented the use of a cubic spline equation to simulate stressstrain curves defined by two measured parameters. The same was extended to threedimensional spaces defined by three measured parameters. A bi-cubic spline function
was used for simulation of spaces defined by such groups of parameters as stress
difference, axial strain and confining pressure; radial strain; axial strain and confining
pressure; volumetric strain; mean pressure and relative density; and octahedral stress,
octahedral strain and mean pressure.
Gourc et al. (1982) studied the bearing capacity of a two layer system (a
cohesionless soil sub-base and a clay subgrade) under punching. Quasi-static
punching model analysis was carried out to study the influence of the geotextile
modulus and the setting conditions (free or fixed extremities of the fabric) on the
anchorage design. From the experiments, the membrane effect of the fabric behavior
was interpreted. Lateral sliding of the reinforcement under the axial load was also
studied.
Prakash et al. (1984) proposed a novel analysis to predict the pressuresettlement characteristics of footings using the hyperbolic stress-strain curves of soils
as constitutive law. The analysis incorporated the effect of shape, base roughness and
flexibility of footings. The analyses were developed both square and strip footings.
Results were presented in terms of ultimate bearing capacity, settlement at failure and
non-dimensional correlations of settlement. The soil mass was assumed to semiinfinite and isotropic medium. The footing base was assumed to be fully flexible or
fully rigid. The roughness of the footing was assumed to generate uniform tangential
forces at the contact surface, acting inwardly, and zero at the centre. The
mathematical model proposed by Kondner (1963) in the form of a two-constant
hyperbolic model was used to describe the constitutive law of the soil. Though the
parabolic distribution was more realistic, a trapezoidal distribution was followed for
the ease of computations. The whole soil mass was divided into a number of
horizontal layers and the stresses in each layer was calculated by using Boussinesqs
theory. It was assumed that there is no slippage at the interface of layers of the soil
mass. It was observed that roughness and rigidity of footing had a very negligible
effect o the average pressure-settlement curves. At failure condition, the settlement
was observed to be about 5% and 12.5% for all cases of strip footings and rigid square
footing respectively. It was suggested that the proposed methodology could be
conveniently used to analyze and design shallow foundations and pile foundations in
clays by suitably modifying stress equations. However, the proposed methodology
could not be adopted in cohesionless soils as stress equations based on the theory of
elasticity does not take into account the variation of elastic modulus, E, due to
confining pressure.
Huang & Tatsuoka (1988) predicted the bearing capacity in a level sandy
ground with strip reinforcement by stability analysis by limit equilibrium method, for
both the cases of short and long reinforcement. It was observed that at the peak
footing load, the shear bands developed only in a limited area beneath the footing,
with small strains developed outside the active zone under the footing. Bearing
capacity was also found to be increase markedly by restraining possible strains in the
soil in the zone beneath the footing by means of short strips with the same length as
the footing width. It was also concluded that the prediction of the tensile forces in
reinforcements was essential under practical conditions.
Floss and Gold (1990) performed FEM analysis to predict the bearing and
deformation behavior of the single reinforced two-layer system. The soil continuum
was modeled by eight noded, isoparametric elements with quadratic shape functions
and for the geotextile, isoparametric bar elements were used. Thin layer elements
were used to model the interaction and the potential for the relative movement
between the reinforcement and the soil. Movements of the soil relative to the
movement of the reinforcement under large shear distortions of the thin layer
elements was modeled by supplying a joint parallel to the reinforcement, to limit the
transfer of forces from the soil into the reinforcement by Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion. The Youngs modulus of the surrounding soil was considered to be one. The
calculations were performed by using elasto-plastic deformation under consideration
of the yield criterion and the flow rule of Mohr-Coulomb. Tension was not allowed
for the soil element, the bar elements were defined for tension. Viscoplastic iteration
algorithm was used to reduce and recontribute the inadmissible stresses. It was
observed that at relatively low load level, the frictional base course began to plastify
in the area of the load application area. With further loading, the plastified area
enlarged until it reached the weak soil. It was also observed that as the subsoil
plastified over large area, the deformations went on increasing over-proportionally till
the yielding of the system occurred. Both the bearing capacity increased and
settlement was reduced on the inclusion of reinforcement in the analysis. This was
attributed t the altered stress distribution due to the placing of the inclusion. It was
observed that the shear stress peaks were lower by 25% compared to unreinforced
system. Because of the reinforcement, the horizontal strains were reduced and the
horizontal stresses were concentrated in the areas with high vertical stresses. The
contribution of the vertical stresses indicated the load spreading effect of
reinforcement.
Murthy et al. (1993) carried out limit equilibrium analysis to study and
evaluate the bearing capacity of a reinforced soil foundation. It was proposed that on
application of the vertical load on a footing, downward movement of soil will take
place along with the lateral flow of soil. It was assumed that the total load carried by
the footing on a reinforced soil bed was carried simultaneously by the soil and the
reinforcements, and that the load carried by the soil alone was responsible for the
settlement of the footing. The boundary of the vertically and the laterally moving soil
mass was assumed to be a vertical plane passing through the edge of the footing.
Right angle kinks were assumed to be formed in the reinforcement along the potential
slip plane resulting in the transfer of tension in the reinforcement as vertical force
required resisting the applied load. Elastic theory was used to determine the stress
distribution inside the soil mass. Failure was observed to occur in the modes of tie
failure or frictional failure, where the frictional failure seemed to be critical for the
evaluation of the mobilized tension in the reinforcement. It was suggested that while
computing the frictional strength of lower layers, the load component carried by the
upper layers had been assumed to be distributed uniformly beyond the loaded area,
and hence not available for the mobilization of frictional strength. This method was
proposed to check the ultimate bearing capacity accurately for both tie pullout and tie
failure conditions.
Burd (1995) presented an analysis concerning the mechanics and design of
unpaved reinforced roads built over soft clay. An analytical design method was
proposed based on the membrane reinforcement mechanism where large surface
deformations were expected to occur. A FEM model was also proposed. However, the
analytical model revealed a lot of discrepancies when compared to the finite element
model, due to non-inclusion of the shear stresses developed very near to the origin of
the reinforcement. This study did not include the effects of elastic soil deformations
and the shear stresses developed at the base of the fill, immediately beneath the load.
Moreover, the model was proposed for a constant fill thickness during the application
of the load, thus leading to an over-stiff response as bearing capacity of the fill was
approached. It was concluded that the load-spread model was very simple enough to
accurately represent the load-spreading mechanism beneath the base layer under the
application of the load; thus further research was needed in the area.
Zhao (1996) presented a failure criterion for the reinforced soil composite. A
slip-line method was described and the failure loads and stress characteristic fields for
reinforced slopes, walls and foundations were calculated using the proposed slip-line
method. The failure criterion presented was anisotropic due to the inclusion of the
geosynthetic reinforcement in preferred direction. It was observed that the
geosynthetic reinforcement enlarges the plastic failure region in a reinforced soil
structure, and significantly increased the load bearing capacity.
was mobilized to counter the displacement. At closer spacing, the interference of the
two strips on each others displacement was more and hence lesser mobilized shear
stress was observed. It was also observed that no additional benefit was observed
when the length of the reinforcing strip was greater than twice the footing width. It
was concluded that placing the reinforcing strips at greater depths at farther spacing is
advantageous in achieving maximum settlement reduction due to shear interactions
alone. The ratio relating the combined effect of the strips considered together to the
sum of individual effects was observed to increase with the distances between the
strips.
Saran (1998) proposed an analytical analysis to determine the pressure on a
rectangular footing resting on reinforced sand for a given settlement for which the
pressure on the same footing resting on unreinforced sand is known. A method was
also proposed to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing on reinforced
sand. The results were presented in non-dimensional form. Good agreement was
observed between the data and the model results. It was observed that the ultimate
bearing capacity of the footing can be increased significantly by adequately
reinforcing the sand bed, which simultaneously resulted in the lowering of settlement
by a significant amount.
Shukla & Chandra (1998) presented a simple mechanical modeling approach
to study the settlement characteristics of geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil
system subjected to axi-symmetric load at any stage of consolidation of the soft
subgrade. The salient features of the reinforced soil system were retained to study the
gross behavior of the system. It was concluded that the development of horizontal
stresses in the geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill on soft subgrade under axisymmetric load resulted in settlement reduction. Prestressing the geosynthetic
Dey (2002) modified the dimensionless force curves proposed by (Binquet &
Lee (1975 b)) by considering small intervals of length (x) on the length of the tie
breakage (X0) in the hypothetical formula. This resulted in the significant change in
the J (z/B) curve, whereas the curves, I (z/B) & M (z/B) showed minor or no changes
at all. This change reflected the trend of development of tie tension in different layers
of reinforcement as obtained in the model study (Binquet & Lee (1975 a)). However,
this approach was also based on the assumption that the tie force per layer varies
inversely with the number of layers of reinforcement, which required further
investigation and refinement.
Kumar & Saran (2003) presented a method of analysis for calculating the
pressure intensity for calculating the pressure intensity corresponding to a given
settlement for a rectangular footing resting on a reinforced soil foundation. Nondimensional charts and an empirical method were suggested to determine the ultimate
bearing capacity of a rectangular footing on rectangular soil. It was pointed out that
inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement below the footing increased both the ultimate
and allowable bearing stresses at a given settlement. It was concluded that
computation of the pressure ratio or bearing capacity ratio consisted of two essential
steps i.e. computation of the normal force on the reinforcement area and the
estimation of interfacial frictional resistance at different layers of the reinforcement.
However, the method proposed required the pressure-settlement values of the
unreinforced soil as a pre-requisite, which was obtained from the standard methods.
Thus, further researches were required to incorporate the deficiency.
Maharaj (2003) conducted nonlinear two-dimensional finite element analysis
for a strip footing on reinforced clay under plane strain condition. The footing and the
soil was discretized by four noded isoparametric finite elements while the
reinforcement was modeled by four noded one-dimensional finite elements. The soil
was idealized as Drucker-Prager elasto-plastic medium. Investigations were made to
study the effects of embedment depth of first layer of reinforcement, spacing of
reinforcement layers, number of reinforcement layers and the size of the
reinforcement. For case of single layer of reinforcement, optimum embedment depth
of reinforcement resulted in the maximum reduction in settlement. The same was
observed in the case of multi-layer of reinforcement. It was observed that the
increment of tensile stiffness of reinforcement reduced the settlement of footing both
for the cases of single and multi layer of reinforcement up to a critical value, beyond
which the settlement reduction was negligible. It was also observed that the settlement
reduced with the increasing number of layers, only up to a critical value of number of
layers. Closely spaced reinforcement provided a larger bearing capacity. It was
suggested that the load carrying capacity of the reinforced footing was more in the
case where reinforcement of higher tensile rigidity was utilized.
Kumar et al. (2004) proposed a method to obtain the pressure settlement
characteristics of rectangular footings resting on reinforced sand based on constitutive
laws of soils. The analysis incorporated the confining effect of the reinforcement
provided in the soil at different layers by considering the equivalent stresses generated
due to friction at the soil-reinforcement interface. Ultimate bearing capacity value is
needed as a prerequisite to the analysis. The pressure settlement curves provided the
actual settlement of the footing directly for a given pressure intensity. The method
could be used for proportioning of rectangular footing resting on reinforced sand
satisfying the shear failure and settlement criteria. The analysis considers the effect of
the weight of the soil mass in determination of the stresses. Kondners two-constant
hyperbolic model had been used in the analysis. It was observed that the predicted and
model test results agreed well up to two-third of the ultimate bearing pressure. It was
suggested that under working stress conditions, the allowable bearing pressure could
be derived from ultimate bearing pressure using a factor of safety 2 to 3.
Maheshwari et al. (2004) presented a model for estimating the flexural
response of beam resting on reinforced beds with reinforcing elements such as
geogrids, which were idealized as beams with smooth surface characteristics. The
lower poor strata and upper dense soil were modeled using Winkler springs of
different stiffness. The effect of depth of placement of had been incorporated by
taking a surcharge load on the reinforcing elements. The governing differential
equations for the response of the beam were derived and closed-form analytical
solutions were obtained subjected to appropriate boundary and continuity conditions.
A particular case of the study identically matched with the solution provided by
Hetenyi for infinite beams on elastic foundation. Practically no change was observed
in the normalized deflection of the upper and lower beams when the normalized
length ratio of beams exceeded 1.5 for the range of parameters considered. The
normalized depth of placement of the lower beam had a significant effect on the
deflection response of beams. The normalized net deflection of the upper and lower
beam increased by 41% and 45% respectively by the increase in normalized depth
from 0.5 to 1.5. For the lower beam, the deflection at the edge of the beam increased
by the same ratio by which the depth of placement increased. The relative flexural
rigidity of the beam, R affected the deflection at the edges of the beam more than at
the centre. For the upper beam, at normalized length of 2.2, the deflection of the beam
behavior reversed. The net normalized deflection of the upper beam decreased by
14% at the centre while it decreased 60% for a reduction of R from 50 to 1. for the
lower beam, the deflection reduced by 63% at the edge of the beam for the same
Table 1.1
Summary of literature review related to geosynthetic-reinforced soil system
(Theoretical Works)
1963
Proposed a two constant hyperbolic form of stressstrain response for modeling of soil behavior for loaddeformation analysis of foundations.
1970
Desai
1971
1975
1981
1981
Andrawes et al.
1982
Gourc et al.
1982
1984
Proposed a novel analysis to predict the pressuresettlement characteristics of footings using the
hyperbolic stress-strain curves of soils as constitutive
law.
Kondner
Prakash et al.
1988
Madhav &
Poorooshasb
1988
Bourdeau
1989
Poran et al.
1989
1990
Sellmeijer
1990
Poorooshasb
1991
1993
Murthy et al.
1993
Burd
1995
1995
Zhao
1996
Yin
Yin
Michalowski
Pitchumani &
Madhav
1998
1998
1998
1998
Kotake et al.
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2001
Kotake et al.
2001
Dey
2002
Saran
Siddiquee et al.
Peng et al.
Yin
Madhav &
Pitchumani
2003
Maharaj
2003
2004
2004
2004
Kumar et al.
Maheshwari et al.
Saran et al.
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.9
Figure1.10
Figure 1.11
Figure 1.12
Figure 1.13
1.3
the reinforcement is considered only in a few studies (Fakher & Jones, 2001, and
Maheshwari et al., 2004). However, the bending stiffness of the reinforcement may
produce a significant effect on the settlement behavior of the beams on reinforced
elastic foundations. For dealing with geosynthetic reinforced foundation system,
especially reinforced with geogrids, geocells and/or geomats, and if the underlying
soil layer is either a clayey soil with consistency ranging from medium to soft or a
sand layer with low relative density with high compressibility, then the bending
stiffness of the beams plays a significant role in determining the deflection behavior
of the foundation.
It is also noted from the above studies that the soil beneath the footing and
reinforcing beams are considered to be of uniform subgrade modulus, thus neglecting
the confining effect of the underlying soils. But, the soil lying near the centre of the
footing and the reinforcing beam, being subjected to higher confining pressure, would
provide more resistance to deflection in comparison to the soils away from centre.
Thus, it is expected that the discrete springs idealizing the foundation will have
maximum and minimum values of the stiffness respectively at the centre and the edge
of the footing and reinforcing beam and it is needed to be considered in the design.
It is also observed from the literatures that the settlement response of the
beams on reinforced foundation beds with underlying clayey soils had been carried
out as a function of consolidation ratio of the soft soil. The time dependency of the
settlement in such cases is obtained as an indirect effect of the consolidation. Thus, no
analytical work did produce the time-dependent settlement behavior of beams on
CHAPTER 2
2.1
Introduction
If the reinforcing element of a foundation bed is made up of geogrids, geomats
and/or geocells, concrete or metallic strips it may be necessary to take into account
their bending resistance for a realistic analysis of the same. Fakher and Jones (2001),
Maheshwari et al. (2004) made some studies in this direction and obtained solutions
using finite element method and analytical (closed form) technique respectively.
Using finite element method, Fakher and Jones (2001) simulated a layer of
sand overlaying a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement and super soft clay to study the
influence of the bending stiffness (flexural rigidity) of the reinforcement on the
bearing capacity of super soft clay. They assumed the soil layer to be homogeneous. It
was concluded that higher the reinforcement bending stiffness, higher was the bearing
capacity of the system.
Maheshwari et al. (2004) made use of the Hetenyis model to analyze the
problem assuming the stiffness of the springs idealizing the soil behavior to be
uniform.
But, the soil lying near the centre of the footing and the reinforcing beam,
being subjected to higher confining pressure, would provide more resistance to
deflection in comparison to the soils away from centre. Thus, it is expected that the
discrete springs idealizing the foundation will have maximum and minimum values of
the stiffness respectively at the centre and the edge of the footing and reinforcing
beam.
As such, in this chapter, the model as proposed by Maheshwari et al. (2004) to
find the response of foundations resting on a granular soil bed reinforced with geogrid
reinforcement is modified to account for the variation of the spring constants along
the length of the footing and the reinforcing beam. With the above modification, a
generalized procedure that has been developed to find the flexural response of the
foundation beam has been reported here.
2.2
fill, underlain by natural poor granular deposit is shown in Figure 2.1. A reinforcing
geogrid layer is provided at the interface of the densely compacted and the natural
poor granular media. Both the footing and the reinforcing layer are idealized as elastic
beams of flexural rigidity E1I1 and E2I2 respectively. The lengths of the footing and
reinforcing beams are 2l1 and 2l2 respectively. A concentrated load of magnitude Q
acts at the centre of the footing beam. The unit weights of the upper and lower soil
media are 1 and 2 respectively. The soil layers have subgrade modulus k1(x) and k2
(x) respectively. The variation of modulus of subgrade reaction is assumed to be non-
linear. Being deflected by the external loads, the reinforcing beam may experience a
resultant tensile force T (=1H) due to the friction arising from the surrounding
granular media, where is the interfacial friction angle. To take care of the effect of
the granular media above the reinforcing layer, a uniform surcharge is considered all
over the length of the reinforcing layer. The primary aim of the present study is to find
the effect of the non-linearity of the spring constant on the deformation response of
the reinforced foundation system.
Figure 2.1
2.3
Analysis
2.3.1 Assumptions
a) The problem considered is symmetrical both in terms of geometry and loading
conditions. Hence, only one half of the reinforced foundation system is
analyzed.
b) The subgrade modulus of both the compacted sand layer and the poor soil are
considered to be non-linear, having maximum and minimum values at the
centre and the edges of the beams respectively.
c) The footing and the reinforcing beams were considered to be rough.
d) Both the compacted and the poor granular media are idealized by Winkler
springs.
2.3.2 Governing differential equations
Due to symmetry of the model, only one half (x0) is analyzed. The deflection
co-ordinates are denoted as y1 and y2 respectively for the footing and reinforcing
beam. For the loading condition shown in Figure 2.1, the governing differential
equations for the footing and the reinforcing beam can be written as follows,
E1 I1
E2 I 2
d 4 y1
dx 4
= p1 = ( y1 y 2 )k1 ( x),
0 x l1
(1)
d 2 y2
d 4 y2
T
= 1 H ( p 2 p1 ) = 1 H (k1 + k 2 ) y 2 + k1 y1 ,
dx 4
dx 2
0 x l1 (2)
and,
E2 I 2
d 4 y2
d 2 y2
T
= 1 H p2 = 1 H k 2 y 2 ,
dx 4
dx 2
l1 x l 2
(3)
where,
T = 2 1 Hl1
0 x l1
(3a)
T = 2 1 H (l 2 l1 )
l1 x l 2
(3b)
The variation of the subgrade modulus of the densely compacted granular fill along
the length of the footing beam is assumed to be of parabolic distribution as,
k1 ( x ) = k10 k11 x k12 x 2
0 x l1
(3c)
Similarly, for the natural loose granular deposit, variation of subgrade modulus along
the length of reinforcement beam is assumed as,
k 2 ( x ) = k 20 k 21 x k 22 x 2
0 x l2
(3d)
E1 I 1 d 4 y1
E1 I1
d 4 y1
+
y
=
+ y1
1
k 1 dx 4
(k10 k11 x k12 x 2 ) dx 4
(4)
k 2 n E1 I 1
d 4 y2
d 2 y2
d 4 y1
T
= 1 H k10 k1n +
E2 I 2
f 1n
k 20 k 2 n y1
k r k10
dx 4
dx 2
dx 4
(5)
Substituting equation (4) in equation (5) and after subsequent rearranging results in
E 2 I 2 E1 I1
d 7 y1 1
d 6 y1 1
d 5 y1
d 8 y1 1
f
f
f
+
+
+
f1n
n
n
n
2
3
4
dx 7 l 22
dx 6 l 23
dx 5
dx 8 l 2
k10
4
6
5
4
d y1
E1 I1
E1 I1
d y1 3
d y1 1
d y1
f 5n
= 1H
T
+ f 2n
+ 2 f 3n
+ E 2 I 2 1 + 4
6 f1n
4
6
5
4
6
k
l
l
k
dx
dx
dx
l
dx
10
2
2 10
2
2
4
T d y1 + k k + k 2 n E1 I 1 f d y1 + k k y
10 1n
1n
20 2 n 1
k
2
dx
k
dx
r 10
4
(6)
where, the functions are given as follows
f1n =
1
k1n
(6a)
f2n =
f 3n
f4n
4 k11n + 2k12n x
(6b)
k12n
{24k (k
=
n
11
f5n
n2
11
(6c)
(6d)
24 k n 4 + 3k n 2 k n + k n 2 + 120k n k n k n 2 + k n x
11
11 12
12
11 12 11
12
n2
n
n2 2
n n3 3
n4 4
+ 240k12 k12 + k11 x + 240k11k12 x + 120k12 x
=
k15n
(6e)
(6f)
where,
k11n =
k11 n k12
k
, k12 =
and k1n = 1
k10
k10
k10
k2 n = 1 k21n x k22n x 2
(6g)
(6h)
where,
k 21n =
k 21
k
k
, k 22n = 22 and k 2 n = 2
k 20
k 20
k 20
(6i)
4
3
2
8
dx n7
dx n6
dx n5
dx n
= 1' H ' M 4 l n R
2 '
4 '
d y1
d y1
+ F6
+ F7 y1'
+ F5
2
4
dx n
dx n
where,
The coefficients F1 to F7 are given in Appendix I and
(7)
xn =
1l 22
l
EI
x ' y1 E1 I 1
l
H
'
=
,
, y1 =
, H ' = , M = 2 , ln = 1 and R = 1 1
1
3
Q
l1
R1
E2 I 2
l2
l2
Ql 2
(7a)
In a similar way, the non-dimensional forms equations (4) and (3) are respectively
y 2' =
d 4 y1' 1 '
1
+ y1 ,
R
RM 4 k1n dx n4
0xl1
(8)
and,
Rn4
d 4 y 2'
dx n4
2 '" H ' (1 l n )l n M 4 k r
d 2 y 2'
dx n2
(9)
k
EI
E I
R
y2 E2 I 2
, k r = 10 , R1 = 4 1 1 , R2 = 4 2 2 , 1" = 1 , and Rn = 1
3
k 20
k10
k 20
k10
R2
Ql 2
(9a)
For the footing beam, at the point of application of load, i.e. at x=0, slope of
the deflected shape of the beam is zero and the shear force is Q/2. At the edge of the
footing beam, i.e. at x=l1, the bending moment and the shear force are zero, as the
beam end is free. For the reinforcing beam, which is within the foundation soil, at
point x=0, slope of the deflected shape of the beam and the shear force are zero; and at
x=l2, bending moment and shear force are zero. For the reinforcing beam, at x=l1, the
continuity of deflection, slope, bending moment and shear force are duly
incorporated.
The boundary conditions in their non-dimensional form can be presented as
For footing beam,
at x = 0 , slope is zero and the shear force is half of the load applied.
i.e.
dy1'
= 0 ................................ (10a)
dx n
d 3 y1' 1
= .......................... (10b)
2
dx n3
i.e.
d 3 y1'
dx n3
'
T'
dy1
= 0 ...... (10d)
dx n
i.e.
d 3 y 2'
= 0 ........................... (10f)
dx n3
d 3 y 2'
dx n3
'
dy
T ' 2 = 0 ........... (10h)
dx n
where,
T'=
T l 22
E2 I 2
(10i)
= y2
y2
dy 2
dy
= 2
dx x
dx x +
(11b)
d 2 y2
d 2 y2
=
dx 2 x
dx 2 x +
(11b)
x+
(11a)
and,
Shear force is equal i.e.
d 3 y2
d 3 y2
T dy 2
T dy 2
3
3
E 2 I 2 dx
E 2 I 2 dx
dx
dx
x
x+
(11c)
= 1h M ln R
'
'
'
'
+ C i +1 y i +1 + C i + 2 y i + 2 + C i +3 y i +3 + Ci + 4 y i + 4
(12)
where,
The coefficients Ci-4 to Ci+4 are given in Appendix I.
The reinforcing beam is divided into nr nodes (i=1, 2, 3, ...nb, nb+1, .....nr),
where nb is the number of nodes up to the length l1, and beyond l1 and up to the length
l2, node number ranges from nb to nr. The deflection profile of the reinforcing beam is
governed by the equations (8) and (9), which are subsequently written in the finite
difference form using central difference scheme.
To establish continuity at node nb of reinforcing beam, equation (8) is applied
up to (nb-4)th node using central difference, and thereafter backward difference
scheme is applied to obtain the deflection values up to the node nb
Equation (12) when applied at the nodes of the footing beam, with due
incorporation of the boundary conditions, provided a set of linear equations, which is
solved by the Gauss-Seidel iterative technique to obtain the deflection profile of the
footing beam. Once the deflected shape is determined, from the same, the slope,
bending moment, shear force and contact pressures can be computed.
2.4
0.001
Figure 2.3
0.01
0.1
0.010
0.030
0.050
0.070
0.090
l n = 0.67
' = 0.6
H' = 0.35
=0
0.110
0.130
Stable
0.150
0.170
0.190
0.210
R=20, kr=5
R=5, kr=5
R=5, kr=20
R=10, kr=5
R=10, kr=10
R=5, kr=10
0.001
Figure 2.4
0.01
0.1
0.020
0.070
l n = 0.67
' = 0.6
H' = 0.35
=0
k n = 0.5
0.120
Stable
0.170
0.220
0.270
R=20, kr=5
R=5, kr=5
R=5, kr=20
R=10, kr=5
R=10, kr=10
R=5, kr=10
2.4.2
2.4.2.1
mesh size (h/l1) as 0.008. In order to compare the present solution with that of
Hetenyis (1946), results were obtained choosing the length of the footing and
reinforcing beams to be equal and neglecting the surcharge on the reinforcing beam.
The comparison is shown in Figure 2.5. Deflection profile of the footing and the
reinforcing beam were found out considering the relative flexural rigidity of beams
and the relative stiffness of the soils to be 10 and 5 respectively. The numerical
solution is observed to be in excellent agreement with the Hetenyis solution, the
maximum variation being 3% to 5%. To arrive at the desired solution, several trial
solutions had to be made, adjusting the length of both the beams equal and large
enough so that they may be considered to be long enough to be called as infinite
beams and analogous to that of Hetenyis model,. It is observed from the present
study that if the l/Rc (Rc is the characteristic length of the beam) ratio for the beam
exceed 6.7, the beam behaved as a long beam.
2.4.2.2
beam to that of the unreinforced case, where the footing beam is considered to be
placed directly on the poor soil. It is observed that incorporation of reinforcement
reduced significantly (by about 16 %) the maximum settlement. The deflection profile
of the footing and reinforcing beam with the degenerated case of uniform subgrade
modulus when compared with the solution reported by Maheshwari et al. (2004)
shows an excellent agreement, the deviation being less than 1%. The figure also
shows the deflection profile of the footing and reinforcing beam using variable
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
0
0.001
0.002
Reinforcing beam
Footing beam
0.003
R = 10
kr = 10
=0
0.004
0.005
Figure 2.5
Hetenyi (1946)
Present study
Deflection (mm)
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
l 1 = 2 m, l 2 = 3m P = 100 kN
3
3
k 10 = 250 MN/m = 15 kN/m
=0
3
k 20 = 50 MN/m
k n = 0.5
2
E 1 I 1 = 50 MNm
H = 0.35 m
2
E 2 I 2 = 2.5 MNm
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
Maheshwari et al. footing (2004)
Unreinforced
Figure 2.6
Table 2.1
Sl. No.
Non-dimensional parameters
Symbol
Range
0.5 2.0
R=E1I1/E2I2
5 250
kr = k10/k20
5 300
0.5 2.5
kn
0-
Coefficient of friction
0.5 1.0
2.4.3.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.05
0.06
0.07
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
H'=0.5
Figure 2.7
H'=1.0
H'=1.5
H'=2.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.011
0.012
H'=0.5
Figure 2.8
H'=1.0
H'=1.5
H'=2.0
2.4.3.2
of beams on the normalized deflection profile of footing and reinforcing beams. The
value of R is varied from 5 to 250. The increase in value of R signifies that the footing
beam is becoming more rigid with respect to the reinforcing beam, and thus would
offer increased resistance to settlement. The figure also shows that the settlement of
the footing beam decreases with the increase in R. It is observed that as the value of R
becomes 150, the variation of settlement of footing beam becomes negligible. Similar
observation is made with the reinforcing beam. As the relative flexural rigidity of
beams increases, the settlement of the reinforcing beam decreases rapidly. As R
becomes 100, the variation in deflection becomes negligible and it barely shows any
deflection throughout the length of the reinforcing beam. The normalized settlement
of the footing and reinforcing beam decreased by 26 % and 100 % due to the increase
the value of relative flexural rigidity of footing and reinforcing beam from 5 to 250.
2.4.3.3
upper compacted soil layer and the lower poor/loose soil layer on the deflection
profile of the footing and reinforcing beam respectively. The value of kr is varied
from 5 to 300. The increase in the value of kr signifies that the upper compacted
granular layer is becoming stiffer, and that it will offer more resistance to deflection.
The figure also shows that the settlement of the footing beam decreases as the value of
kr increases, and becomes negligible as the kr value becomes 200. Similar observation
is made with the reinforcing beam. The normalized deflection of the footing and
reinforcing beams decreases by 26 % and 28 % respectively as the kr increases from 5
to 300.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.08
0.09
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
Figure 2.9
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=50
R=100
R=150
R=200
R=250
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.005
0.01
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
R=5
Figure 2.10
R=10
R=20
R=50
R=100
R=250
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.08
0.085
0.09
R = 20
' = 0.8
H' = 0.35
= 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.095
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
Figure 2.11
kr=5
kr=10
kr=20
kr=100
kr=200
300
kr=50
relative
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.004
0.0042
0.0044
0.0046
R = 20
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.0048
0.005
0.0052
0.0054
0.0056
0.0058
0.006
Figure 2.12
kr=5
kr=10
kr=20
kr=100
kr=200
kr=300
kr=50
2.4.3.4
compacted granular layer on the deflection profile of footing and reinforcing beams
respectively. The non-dimensional unit weight of the compacted granular layer is
varied from 0.5 to 2.5. Higher unit weight produces greater surcharge on the
reinforcing beam. The settlement profile of the footing beam increases with the
increase in unit weight of compacted soil. Similar is the observation with the
reinforcing beam. The normalized settlement of the footing and reinforcing beams
increased by over 100 % each for increase in from 0.5 to 2.5. Thus surcharge
weight has a profound influence on the settlement of beams on reinforced elastic
foundation.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.04
0.06
0.08
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
'=0.5
Figure 2.13
'=1.5
'=2.5
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.003
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
'=0.5
Figure 2.14
2.4.3.5
0.6
0.002
'=1.5
'=2.5
on the deflection profile of the footing and reinforcing beam respectively. The
subgrade modulus is assumed to vary parabolically along the length of the beam as
mentioned earlier. The ratio kn is defined as the ratio of k11/k12 or k21/k22. The variation
of kn actually signifies the nature of distribution of subgrade modulus along the length
of the beam. kn= indicates linear distribution of subgrade modulus, and succeeding
lower values of kn indicates the variation of subgrade modulus along the length of the
beam with a higher curvature. The ratio kn is varied from 0 to . It is observed that as
the ratio kn increases, the deflection of both the footing and the reinforcing beam
increases. The normalized settlement of the footing and reinforcing beam increased by
37 % and 14 % respectively due to the increase in value of kn from 0 to . Thus, it is
observed that the distribution of subgrade modulus influences the flexural response of
the beams on the reinforced elastic foundations. Thus, it should be considered in the
analysis and design of reinforced foundations.
2.4.3.6
the settlement response of the footing and reinforcing beam. It is observed that
variation of has a very little effect on the normalized deflection profile of the beams.
Friction coefficients of 0.5 and 1.0 were considered in the study. Maximum deviation
in the normalized deflection at the centre of the footing and reinforcing beam was
observed to be less than 1.0 % for variable subgrade modulus. Thus, it is observed
that the friction have only negligible effect on the flexural response of the beams on
reinforced elastic foundation when the flexural rigidity of the beams are considered in
the analysis.
Normalize d distance from ce ntre of be am
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.008
0.012
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
0.016
0.02
0.024
kn=0
kn=0.25
kn=1.0
kn=1.5
kn=4.0
kn=9.0
kn=infinity
Figure 2.15
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.0017
0.0018
0.0019
0.002
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
0.0021
0.0022
0.0023
0.0024
0.0025
kn=0
kn=0.25
kn=1.0
kn=1.5
kn=4.0
kn=9.0
kn=infinity
Figure 2.16
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.102
0.104
0.106
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.108
0.11
0.112
0.114
0.116
Figure 2.17
=0.5
=1.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.0051
0.0052
0.0053
0.0054
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.0055
0.0056
0.0057
0.0058
0.0059
=0.5
Figure 2.18
2.4.3.7
=1.0
moment of the footing and reinforcing beams respectively for the variation in relative
flexural rigidity of footing and reinforcing beams (R). It is observed that the
maximum negative bending moment occurs at the centre of the footing and
reinforcing beam and decreases by 67 % and 58 % respectively with the value of R
increasing from 5 to 250. The bending moment at the edge of the beams is zero.
2.4.3.8
of the footing and reinforcing beams respectively for the variation in relative flexural
rigidity of footing and reinforcing beams (R). It is observed that the maximum
positive shear force occurs at the centre of the footing beam and it has a constant
normalized value of 0.5. As the value of R increases, a positive shear force region
develops in the footing beam. However, the shear force diagram does not show a
major variation with the change of R. In case of reinforcing beam, the shear force at
the centre is zero. The maximum positive shear force occurs near the centre of the
footing beam, and it decreases by 25 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250.
The maximum negative shear force occurs at a point below the edge of the footing
beam and it increases by 21 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250.
-0.03
-0.025
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0
Figure 2.19
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R=5
R=20
R=50
R=150
R=200
R=250
0.7
0.8
0.9
R=100
-0.0035
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0
Figure 2.20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=100
R=150
R=250
0.7
0.8
0.9
R=50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 2.21
R=5
R=50
R=100
R=250
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Figure 2.22
2.5
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=100
R=150
R=250
R=50
Conclusion
From the above studies, it is seen that the nature of distribution of confining
pressure on the beam-soil interface has a significant effect on the settlement response
of a footing placed on a reinforced soil bed. Observation of the above results indicates
that considering variable subgrade reaction, there is a significant deviation of 5%-15%
over and above the same obtained with uniform subgrade reaction. Parametric studies
indicated that the settlement response of beams is influenced by the shape and nature
of distribution of subgrade reaction at the beam-soil interface. It was observed that
variation of coefficient of friction, did not significantly affect the deflection profile
of the beam. Maximum deviation of less than 1 % was observed in the normalized
deflection of the centre of the footing for the values of considered in the study. The
numerical solution was found to be in excellent agreement with the closed form
solution using the Hetenyis model, and also with the solutions previously reported by
Maheshwari et al. (2004), in both cases the deviation being less than 1%.
Thus, the above study indicate that the effect of distribution of confining
pressure on the settlement response of a footing placed on a reinforced soil bed should
be duly incorporated in the design of a reinforced soil foundation. Based on the
studies conducted above, the following conclusions can be drawn for the range of
parameters considered:
(1)
(2)
(3)
It is observed from the present study that if the l/Rc (Rc is the characteristic
length of the beam) ratio for the beam exceed 6.7, the beam behaved as a long
beam.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
The maximum positive shear force occurs near the centre of the footing beam,
and it decreases by 25 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250. The
maximum negative shear force occurs at a point below the edge of the footing
beam and it increases by 21 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250.
The shear force at the edges of the beams is equal to zero.
2.6
Figure 2.23
Figure 2.24
Figure 2.25
Figure 2.26
CHAPTER 3
3.1
Introduction
In Chapter 2, a generalized method of analysis of a foundation resting on a
compacted sand bed overlying a natural loose sand bed with the reinforcement placed
at their interface has been developed and presented. In the present chapter this has
further been extended where in the underlying soil strata is composed of soft to
medium clay instead of a loose sand stratum. As such, for accounting the visco-elastic
clay behavior Burgers 4-element model is adopted in this chapter instead of
Winklers model representing elastic behavior of the sand beds as was done in the
previous chapter. It has been pointed out earlier that for analyzing such problems
generally the settlement at any time is estimated as the total consolidation settlement
(as estimated by using Terzaghis approach) multiplied by the degree of consolidation
and the same is used in the analysis. Thus the time effect is indirectly taken in to
account. But, by considering Burgers model to represent the geo-mechanical
behavior of the clay stratum time effect is taken directly in the analysis. The details of
the development of analysis procedure, its validation has been presented in this
chapter as follows.
3.2
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
3.3
Analysis
3.3.1 Assumptions
e) The problem considered is symmetrical both in terms of geometry and loading
conditions. Hence, only one half of the reinforced foundation system is
analyzed.
f) The subgrade modulus of the compacted sand layer is considered to be nonlinear, having maximum and minimum values at the centre and the edge of the
beam respectively.
g) The footing and the reinforcing beams were considered to be rough.
h) The compacted granular media is idealized by Winkler springs.
i) The underlying weak clay layer with medium to soft consistency is idealized
by Four-element Burger model.
E2 I 2
d 4 y1
= p1 = ( y1 y 2 )k1 ( x ),
dx 4
d 4 y2
dx 4
d 2 y2
dx 2
0 x l1
= 1 H ( p 2 p1 ) = 1 H p 2 + k1 y1 ,
(1)
0 x l1
(2)
and,
E2 I 2
where,
d 4 y2
dx 4
d 2 y2
dx 2
= 1 H p2
l1 x l 2
(3)
T = 2 1 Hl1
0 x l1
(3a)
T = 2 1 H (l 2 l1 )
l1 x l 2
(3b)
p1 = ( y1 y 2 ) k1 ( x)
p2 =
and,
A0 =
(3c)
y2
t
A1
1
B t
1 e B1t + A0 2 1 e B1t
A2 e 1 +
B1
B1 B1
kb2
1 2
A1 =
kb2
1 2
A2 =
(3d)
1
,
kb1
B1 =
kb2
(3e)
where,
1, 2, kb1 and kb2 are the viscous and elastic elements of the four-element
Burger model, which are shown as follows.
kb1
kb2
1
2
Figure 3.3
The contact pressure p2 acting at the base of the reinforcing beam is derived
from the Four-element Burger model given in details in Appendix II.
The variation of the subgrade modulus of the densely compacted granular fill
along the length of the footing beam is assumed to be of parabolic distribution as,
k1 ( x ) = k10 k11 x k12 x 2
0 x l1
(4)
y2 =
E1 I 1 d 4 y1
E1 I 1
d 4 y1
+
=
+ y1
y
1
k 1 dx 4
(k10 k11 x n k12 x n2 ) dx 4
(5)
E2 I 2
d 4 y2
dx 4
d 2 y2
dx 2
= 1 H + k1 y1
B t
A2 e 1
E1 I 1 d 4 y1
+ y1
4
k1 dx
t
A
1
+ 1 1 e B1t + A0 2 1 e B1t
B1
B1 B1
(6)
Substituting equation (5) in equation (6), we get,
E 2 I 2 E1 I1
d 8 y1 1
d 7 y1 1
d 6 y1 1
d 5 y1
+
+
+
f
f
f
f
1n
2n
5
6
3 4n
7
2 3n
8
l2
dx
dx
l2
dx
l2
dx
k10
d 4 y1
E1 I1
E1 I1
d 6 y1 3
d 5 y1 1
d 4 y1
T
+ f 2n
+
f 5n
f 3n
+ E 2 I 2 1 + 4
6 f1n
= 1H
4
6k10
dx 6 l 2
dx 5 l 22
dx 4
l 2 k10
dx
4
2
T d y1 k y + F E1 I1 d y1 + y
1
1 1
4
2
dx
k1 dx
(7)
where,
f 1n =
f2n =
f 3n
f4n
1
k1n
(7a)
4 k11n + 2k12n x
(7b)
2
1n
{24k (k
=
n
11
n2
11
(7c)
(7d)
f5n
24 k n 4 + 3k n 2 k n + k n 2 + 120k n k n k n 2 + k n x
11
11 12
12
11 12 11
12
n2
n
n2 2
n n3 3
n4 4
+ 240k12 k12 + k11 x + 240k11k12 x + 120k12 x
=
k15n
(7e)
(7f)
where,
k11n =
F=
k11 n k12
k
, k12 =
and k1n = 1
k10
k10
k10
(7g)
t
A1
1
B t
1 e B1t + A0 2 1 e B1t
A2 e 1 +
B1
B1 B1
(7h)
d 8 y1'
d 7 y1'
d 6 y1'
d 5 y1'
+
+
+
F
F
F
F
2
3
4
1
8
dx n7
dx n6
dx n5
dx n
= 1' H ' M 4 l n R
4 '
2 '
d y1
d y1
+ F6
+ F7 y1'
+ F5
4
dx n
dx n2
(8)
where,
The coefficients F1 to F7 are given in Appendix III and
xn =
1l 22
l
EI
x ' y1 E1 I 1
l
H
'
=
, y1 =
,
, H ' = , M = 2 , ln = 1 and R = 1 1
1
3
Q
l1
R1
E2 I 2
l2
l2
Ql 2
(8a)
In a similar way, the non-dimensional forms equations (5) and (3) are respectively
d 4 y1' 1 '
1
y =
+ y1 ,
R
RM 4 k1n dx n4
'
2
and,
0xl1
(9)
Rn4
d 4 y 2'
dx n4
2 '" H ' (1 l n )l n M 4 k r
d 2 y 2'
dx n2
1
M 4 y 2' , l1xl2
Fn
(10)
y 2' =
k
R
kb
y2 E2 I 2
EI
E I
, k r = 10 , R1 = 4 1 1 , R2 = 4 2 2 , 1" = 1 , Rn = 1 , k k = 1 ,
3
kb2
k10
k 20
k10
R2
kb2
Ql 2
kb
kb
1
, kb2 n = 2 t , Z = 2 n
2
2
(10a)
For the footing beam, at the point of application of load, i.e. at x=0, slope of
the deflected shape of the beam is zero and the shear force is Q/2. At the edge of the
footing beam, i.e. at x=l1, the bending moment and the shear force are zero, as the
beam end is free. For the reinforcing beam, which is within the foundation soil, at
point x=0, slope of the deflected shape of the beam and the shear force are zero; and at
x=l2, bending moment and shear force are zero. For the reinforcing beam, at x=l1, the
continuity of deflection, slope, bending moment and shear force are duly
incorporated.
The boundary conditions in their non-dimensional form can be presented as
For footing beam,
at x = 0 , slope is zero and the shear force is half of the load applied.
i.e.
dy1'
= 0 ................................ (11a)
dx n
d 3 y1' 1
= .......................... (11b)
2
dx n3
d 2 y1'
= 0 ............................. (11c)
dx n2
'
d 3 y1'
dy
T ' 1 = 0 ...... (11d)
3
dxn
dxn
dy 2'
= 0 ................................ (11e)
dx n
i.e.
d 3 y 2'
= 0 ........................... (11f)
dx n3
d 2 y 2'
= 0 .............................. (11g)
dx n2
d 3 y 2'
dx n3
'
T'
dy 2
= 0 ........... (11h)
dx n
where,
T'=
T l 22
E2 I 2
(11i)
x=l1 on the reinforcing beam, the deflection, bending moment and shear force on the
reinforcing beam are equal, and the continuity is established by the following
conditions.
Deflection is equal i.e.
y2 x = y2 x +
(12a)
dy 2
dy
= 2
dx x
dx x +
(12b)
d 2 y2
d 2 y2
=
dx 2 x
dx 2 x +
(12b)
and,
Shear force is equal i.e.
d 3 y2
d 3 y2
T dy 2
T dy 2
=
3
3
E 2 I 2 dx
E 2 I 2 dx
dx
dx
x
x+
(12c)
The differential equations governing the settlement response of the footing and
the reinforcing beam are discretized using the finite difference technique. The half of
the footing is divided into nb nodes (i.e. i=1, 2, 3, 4, nb). Thus, using central
difference scheme, equation (8) can be written in the following form as,
Ci 4 y i' 4 + C i 3 y i' 3 + C i 2 y i' 2 + C i 1 y i' 1 + C i y i'
' '
4
= 1h M ln R
+ C i +1 y i' +1 + C i + 2 y i' + 2 + C i +3 y i' +3 + Ci + 4 y i' + 4
(12)
where,
The coefficients Ci-4 to Ci+4 are given in Appendix III.
The reinforcing beam is divided into nr nodes (i=1, 2, 3, ...nb, nb+1, .....nr),
where nb is the number of nodes up to the length l1, and beyond l1 and up to the length
l2, node number ranges from nb to nr. The deflection profile of the reinforcing beam is
governed by the equations (9) and (10), which are subsequently written in the finite
difference form using central difference scheme.
To establish continuity at node nb of reinforcing beam, equation (8) is applied
up to (nb-4)th node using central difference, and thereafter backward difference
scheme is applied to obtain the deflection values up to the node nb
Equation (12) when applied at the nodes of the footing beam, with due
incorporation of the boundary conditions, provided a set of linear equations, which is
solved by the Gauss-Seidel iterative technique to obtain the deflection profile of the
footing beam. Once the deflected shape is determined, from the same, the slope,
bending moment, shear force and contact pressures can be computed.
3.4
Convergence study was made by decreasing the size of the element, dividing
the footing beam into a mesh of finite segments. The deflection at the center of the
footing beam was recorded for the decreasing sequence of mesh size to check its
effect on the solution. The computations were made considering normalized times
t=0 (i.e. at the instant of loading) and t=0.5 (i.e. at a subsequent later time). For the
typical combinations of the relative stiffness of the soil and the relative flexural
rigidity of the footing as well as the reinforcing beams, the effect of the decreasing
mesh size ranging from 0.1 to 0.0025 on the normalized deflection of the footing
beam at the mid-span are shown in Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 respectively for the
normalized times t=0 and t=0.5. It is seen that the numerical solution effectively
converges for t=0 and t=0.5 when the mesh size (h/l1) lies in the region of 0.01 to
0.00333 in each case.
0.01
0.1
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0
0.002
l n = 0.67
' = 0.8
=0
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
t' = 0
0.004
0.006
0.008
Stable
0.01
0.012
0.014
Figure 3.4
R=20, kr=5
R=5, kr=5
R=5, kr=20
R=10, kr=5
R=10, kr=10
R=10, kr=10
0.01
0.1
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0
0.002
l n = 0.67
' = 0.8
=0
H' = 0.35
k n = 0.5
t' = 0.5
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Stable
0.012
0.014
R=20, kr=5
R=5, kr=5
R=5, kr=20
R=10, kr=5
R=10, kr=10
R=10, kr=10
Figure 3.5
reduction in the total settlement of the beams becomes less. It signifies that as the
viscous elements helps in the larger distribution of stresses, the settlement of the
footing and reinforcing beam decreases, which is identical to the conventional trends.
Thus, it depicts the correctness of the solution obtained.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0
0.0005
0.001
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
t=0
H' = 0.5
' = 0.8
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
-299
Figure 3.6
Time (days)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Normalized deflection of
reinforcing beam
0
0.005
R= 5
kr = 20
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
kk =1
0.01
0.015
k n = 0.5
0.02
0.025
=0.1
Figure 3.7
=1
=10
Table 3.1
Sl. No.
Non-dimensional parameters
Symbol
Range
0.5 2.0
R=E1I1/E2I2
5 250
kr = k10/kb2
5 300
0.5 2.5
kn
0-
Coefficient of friction
0.5 1.0
1
2
0 10
kk =
kb1
kb2
0 10
Time
3.4.3.1
0 25
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
= 1
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.02
0.04
0.06
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.08
0.1
0.12
Figure 3.8
H'=0.5
H'=1
H'=1.5
H'=2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
Figure 3.9
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
= 1
H'=0.5
H'=1
H'=1.5
H'=2
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
3.4.3.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.002
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
Figure 3.10
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=100
R=200
R=250
R=50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.0005
0.001
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
Figure 3.11
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=50
R=100
R=250
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
3.4.3.3
upper compacted soil layer and the weak clay layer with medium to soft consistency
on the deflection profile of the footing and reinforcing beam respectively. The value
of kr is varied from 5 to 250. The increase in the value of kr signifies that the upper
compacted granular layer is becoming stiffer, and that it will offer more resistance to
deflection. The figure also shows that the settlement of the footing beam decreases as
the value of kr increases, and becomes negligible as the kr value becomes 150.
Similar observation is made with the reinforcing beam. The normalized deflection of
the footing and reinforcing beams decreases by 67 % and 63 % respectively as the kr
increases from 5 to 250.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
R = 20
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.025
0.03
0.035
Figure 3.12
kr=5
kr=50
kr=150
kr=250
kr=100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.0002
R = 20
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
Figure 3.13
3.4.3.4
kr=5
kr=50
kr=150
kr=250
kr=100
compacted granular layer on the deflection profile of footing and reinforcing beams
respectively. The non-dimensional unit weight of the compacted granular layer is
varied from 0.5 to 2.5. Higher unit weight produces greater surcharge on the
reinforcing beam. The settlement profile of the footing beam increases with the
increase in unit weight of compacted soil. Similar is the observation with the
reinforcing beam. The normalized settlement of the footing and reinforcing beams
increased by 67 % each for increase in from 0.5 to 2.5. Thus surcharge weight has a
profound influence on the settlement of beams on reinforced elastic foundation.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.002
0.0025
0.003
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.0035
'=0.5
Figure 3.14
'=1.5
'=2.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
Figure 3.15
'=0.5
'=1.5
'=2.5
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
3.4.3.5
on the deflection profile of the footing and reinforcing beam respectively. The
subgrade modulus is assumed to vary parabolically along the length of the beam as
mentioned earlier. The ratio kn is defined as the ratio of k11/k12. The variation of kn
actually signifies the nature of distribution of subgrade modulus along the length of
the beam. kn= indicates linear distribution of subgrade modulus, and succeeding
lower values of kn indicates the variation of subgrade modulus along the length of the
beam with a higher curvature. The value of kn is varied from 0 to . It is observed that
as the ratio kn increases, the deflection of both the footing and the reinforcing beam
increases. The normalized settlement of the footing and reinforcing beam increased by
11 % and 25 % respectively due to the increase in value of kn from 0 to . Thus, it is
observed that the distribution of subgrade modulus influences the flexural response of
the beams on the reinforced elastic foundations.
Normalized distance from centre
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.008
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.01
0.012
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 1
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
0.022
Figure 3.16
kn=0
kn=0.25
kn=4
kn=infinity
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.0002
0.0004
R = 20
kr = 5
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 1
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
Figure 3.17
3.4.3.6
kn=0
kn=0.25
kn=4
kn=infinity
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
the settlement response of the footing and reinforcing beam. It is observed that
variation of has a very little effect on the normalized deflection profile of the beams.
Friction coefficients of 0.5 and 1.0 were considered in the study. It is observed that
the normalized deflection of both the footing and the reinforcing beam remains
unaffected by the variation of coefficient of friction. Thus, it is observed that the
coefficient of friction have no effect on the flexural response of the beams on
reinforced elastic foundation when the flexural rigidity of the beams are considered in
the analysis. Due to the identical nature of curves for different values of (0.5 and
1.0), the plot co-ordinates became overlapped in both Figures 3.18 and 3.19. Thus, it
was decided to show the alternate points in the plot so that a clear visualization of
both the curves could be obtained.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.005
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.006
0.007
0.008
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 1
0.009
0.01
0.011
0.012
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.013
0.014
=0.5
Figure 3.18
=1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 1
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
=0.5
Figure 3.19
=1
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
3.4.3.7
coefficients of Burger model on the settlement response of the footing and reinforcing
beam respectively. The value of kk is varied from 0.1 to 10. It is observed that the
normalized deflection of the footing beam decreases with the increase in the value of
kk. The effect becomes negligible after a value of kk equals to 5. Similar is the
observation with the reinforcing beam. The normalized settlement of the footing and
reinforcing beam decreased by 95 % in each case due to the variation of kk from 0.1 to
10. Both the footing and reinforcing beam shows bare deflection after kk crosses 7.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.02
0.04
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 0.5
= 1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Figure 3.20
kk=0.1
kk=0.2
kk=0.5
kk=1
kk=2
kk=5
kk=7
kk=10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0
0.005
0.01
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 0.5
= 1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Figure 3.21
3.4.3.8
kk=0.1
kk=0.2
kk=0.5
kk=1
kk=2
kk=5
kk=7
kk=10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
0.025
0.045
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 0.5
t' = 0.5
k k = 0.1
0.065
0.085
0.105
0.125
0.145
k n = 0.5
0.165
Figure 3.22
=0
=0.5
=1
=2
=3
=4
=5
=7
=8
=10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.005
0.01
R = 20
kr = 5
H' = 0.35
' = 0.8
= 0.5
t' = 0.5
k k = 0.1
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
k n = 0.5
0.035
=0
=4
Figure 3.23
=0.5
=5
=1
=7
=2
=10
3.4.3.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Normalized deflection
of footing beam
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
k k = 0.1
k n = 0.5
0.25
Figure 3.24
t'=0
t'=0.32
t'=0.64
t'=1.61
t'=3.22
t'=6.45
t'=9.67
t'=12.90
t'=16.13
t'=19.35
t'=22.58
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
0.002
0.01
k k = 0.1
Normalized deflection
of reinforcing beam
0.008
R = 20
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.004
0.006
k n = 0.5
0.012
Figure 3.25
t'=0
t'=0.32
t'=0.64
t'=1.61
t'=3.22
t'=9.67
t'=12.90
t'=16.13
t'=19.35
t'=22.58
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Time (Days)
R= 5
kr = 20
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.002
0.004
0.006
k k = 0.1
0.008
k n = 0.5
0.01
tpc
0.012
Figure 3.26
-0.05
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
-0.01
0
0.01
0
Figure 3.27
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
R=5
R=20
R=50
R=150
R=200
R=250
0.8
0.9
R=100
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0
Figure 3.28
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
R=5
R=20
R=50
R=100
R=150
200
R=250
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.1
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.2
0.3
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 3.29
R=5
R=50
R=100
R=250
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
kr = 5
' = 0.8
= 0.5
H' = 0.35
= 1
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
Figure 3.30
R=5
R=10
R=20
R=100
R=150
R=250
R=50
k k = 0.1
t' = 0.5
k n = 0.5
3.5
Conclusion
From the above studies, it is seen that the nature of distribution of confining
pressure on the beam-soil interface has a significant effect on the settlement response
of a footing placed on a reinforced soil bed. Parametric studies indicated that the
settlement response of beams is influenced by the shape and nature of distribution of
subgrade reaction at the beam-soil interface. The above parametric studies also
indicate that the choice of the parameters of the Burger model could also significantly
affect the settlement response of the beams. Thus, to obtain a feasible solution from
the settlement response of beams in such cases, a proper choice of the parameters is
necessary. It was observed that variation of coefficient of friction, did not
significantly affect the deflection profile of the beam.
The above study indicate that the effect of distribution of confining pressure
on the settlement response of a footing placed on a reinforced soil bed should be duly
incorporated in the design of a reinforced soil foundation. Based on the studies
conducted above, the following conclusions can be drawn for the range of parameters
considered:
(1)
The numerical solution effectively converges for t=0 and t=0.5 when the
mesh size (h/l1) lies in the region of 0.01 to 0.00333 in each case.
(2)
The current visco-elastic model, the viscous parameters are neglected and the
time lapse is considered to be zero, so that the underlying clay bed is
represented only by a combination of Winkler springs of homogeneous
stiffness along the length of the beams. Only the elastic settlement of the clay
bed is considered. The overlying compacted sand layer is also considered of
homogeneous subgrade modulus. The elastic model described in chapter 1 is
degenerated to consider the soil layers of homogeneous subgrade modulus. A
deviation of only 2.5 % is observed between the results, which show that the
results are in fair agreement with each other.
(3)
It is observed that as the increases ten times form 0.1 to 1, the maximum
decrease in the total settlement of the footing beam is 46 %. Again, when the
value of increases ten times from 1 to 10, the maximum decrease in
settlement becomes 28 %. Thus, it is observed that as the relative ratio of
viscous elements in the Burger model increases by ten times, the reduction in
the total settlement of the beams becomes less.
(4)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
It is observed that the maximum negative bending moment occurs at the centre
of the footing and reinforcing beam and decreases by 32 % and 80 %
respectively with the value of R increasing from 5 to 250. The bending
moment at the edge of the beams is zero. It is observed that as the R value
increases, a positive bending moment develops at the centre of the beams.
(14)
It is observed that the maximum positive shear force occurs at the centre of the
footing beam and it has a constant normalized value of 0.5. As the value of R
increases, a positive shear force region develops in the footing beam. In case
of reinforcing beam, the shear force at the centre is zero. The maximum
positive shear force occurs near the centre of the footing beam, and it
decreases by 66 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250. The
maximum negative shear force occurs at a point below the edge of the footing
beam and it increases by 51 % with the increase in value of R from 0 to 250.
3.6
REFERENCES
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT12, pp.
1257 1276.
Bordeau, P. L. (1989) Modeling of membrane action in a two-layer reinforced soil
system Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 19 36.
Brown, B. S. and Poulos, H. G. (1981) Analysis of foundation on reinforced soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division: Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 97, No.
SM10, pp. 967 971.
Dey, B. (2002) Modified Binquet and Lees design curves for bearing capacity of
reinforced foundation bed Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 421
428.
Dixit, R. K. and Mandal, J. N. (1993) Bearing capacity of geosynthetically
reinforced soil using variational method Geotextile and Geomembranes, Vol. 12,
pp. 543 566.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT9, pp.
1233 1254.
Gourc, J. P, Matichard, Y., Perrier, H. and Delmas, P. (1982) Bearing capacity of a
sand-soft subgrade system with geotextile Proceedings of the Second
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division: Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 89,
No. SM1, pp. 114 143.
Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Siddiquee, M. S. A. and Huang, C. C. (2001)
FEM simulation of the bearing capacity of level reinforced sandy ground
subjected to footing load Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 501
549.
Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Siddiquee, M. S. A. and Yamamuchi, H. (1999)
An insight into the failure of reinforced sand in plane strain compression by FEM
simulation Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 103 130.
Kumar, A. and Saran, S. (2003) Bearing capacity of rectangular footing on
reinforced soil Geotechnical and Geological Engineering An International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 10, pp. 1473
1488.
Saran, S. (1998) Behavior of footings on reinforced sand Proceedings of the
National Workshop, IGS, Kanpur Local Chapter, IIT Kanpur, India, pp. 74 85.
Saran, S., Youssef, Z. T. and Bhandari, N. M. (2004) Stress-strain characteristics of
soil/reinforced soil and their modeling Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No.
1, pp. 64 79.
APPENDIX I
F1 = f1n
(1)
F2 = f 2 n
(2)
(3)
F4 = f 4 n 1" H ' l n2 RM 4 f 2 n
(4)
k
1
F5 = M 4 + f 5 n + RM 4 k1n + 2 n f1n 1" H ' l n2 RM 4 f 3n
3
kr
(5)
(6)
F7 =
R
k 2n M 8
kr
(7)
F
F2
Ci 4 = 1 8
7
2(x n )
(x n )
(8)
8 F1
F3
F4
3F2
C i 3 =
+
+
8
7
6
(xn ) (xn ) 2(xn )5
(x n )
(9)
28 F1
F5
6 F3
7 F2
2 F4
Ci 2 =
+
+
8
7
6
5
(xn ) (xn ) (xn )4
(x n ) (x n )
(10)
56 F1
F6
15 F3
4 F5
7 F2
2.5 F4
Ci 1 =
+
+
8
7
6
5
4
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )2
(x n )
(11)
Ci =
70 F1
20 F3
6 F5
2 F6
F
7
8
6
(xn )4 (xn )2
(x n ) (x n )
56 F1
F6
15 F3
4 F5
7 F2
2.5 F4
Ci 1 =
+
+
8
7
6
5
4
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )2
(x n ) (x n )
(12)
(13)
28 F1
F5
6 F3
7 F2
2 F4
Ci 2 =
+
8
7
6
5
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )4
(x n )
(14)
8F1
F3
3F2
F4
+
+
C i 3 =
8
7
6
(xn ) 2(xn )5
(x n ) (x n )
(15)
F
F2
Ci 4 = 1 8 +
7
2(x n )
(x n )
(16)
APPENDIX II
kb2
kb1
y2
y3
y1
2
1
Figure A.1
= kb1 y1
= 2 y 3
(2)
1 = kb2 y 2
(3)
2 = 1 y 2
(1)
(4)
Now,
= 1 + 2 = kb2 y 2 + 1 y 2 = (kb2 + 1 D) y 2
y1 =
y3 =
y2 =
(kb2 + 1 D)
(5)
(6)
kb1
(7)
(8)
y = y1 + y 2 + y 3 =
(D 2 +
D
D
+
+
kb1 (kb2 + 1 D) 2
D 2 kb2
kb
1
1
D) y =
+
+
+ D + 2
1
1 2
kb1 kb11 2 1
kb2
(9)
Let,
A0 =
kb2
1 2
A1 =
kb2
1 2
A2 =
1
,
kb1
B1 =
kb2
B2 = 1
(10)
(t)
(11)
(t) = 0.t
t
Figure A.2
Considering unit step function as shown above, and taking Laplace transform of both
sides, we get,
0 sA2 + A1 +
A0
= L{y (t )} B2 s 2 + B1 s
s
(12)
A0
sA2
A1
L{y (t )} = 0
+
+ 2
(13)
A
A1
y (t ) = L1 0 2 +
+ 2 0
s + B1 s(s + B1 ) s (s + B1 )
(14)
Now,
1
B1t
L1
=e
s
+
B
1
(15)
1
1
L1
1 e B1t
=
(
)
s
s
B
B
+
1
1
t
1
1
L1 2
2 1 e B1t
=
s (s + B1 ) B1 B1
(16)
(17)
Thus, the stress-strain relationship from the burger model is obtained as follows
t
A
1
y (t ) = 0 A2 e B1t + 1 1 e B1t + A0 2 1 e B1t
B1
B1 B1
(18)
APPENDIX III
F1 = f1n
(1)
F2 = f 2 n
(2)
(3)
F4 = f 4 n 1" H ' l n2 RM 4 f 2 n
(4)
1
1 R 4
F5 = M 4 + f 5n 1" H 'l n2 RM 4 f 3n +
M
Fn k r
3
(5)
(6)
F7 =
R 8 1
M kk
kr
Fn
(7)
1
Fn = k k e Z + 1 + + 1 e Z + kb2 n 1 e Z
kk
(8)
F
F2
Ci 4 = 1 8
7
2(x n )
(x n )
(9)
8F1
F3
3F2
F4
+
+
C i 3 =
8
7
6
(xn ) 2(xn )5
(x n ) (x n )
(10)
28F1
6 F3
F5
7 F2
2 F4
+
+
Ci 2 =
8
7
(xn )6 (xn )5 (xn )4
(x n ) (x n )
(11)
56 F1
15F3
4 F5
F6
7 F2
2.5F4
+
+
+
Ci 1 =
8
7
6
5
4
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )2
(x n ) (x n )
(12)
Ci =
70 F1
20 F3
6 F5
2 F6
+ F7
8
6
4
2
(xn ) (xn )
(x n ) (x n )
(13)
56 F1
15F3
4 F5
F6
7 F2
2.5F4
+
+
+
Ci 1 =
8
7
6
5
4
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )2
(x n ) (x n )
(14)
28F1
6 F3
F5
7 F2
2 F4
+
+
Ci 2 =
8
7
6
5
(xn ) (xn ) (xn ) (xn )4
(x n )
(15)
8F1
F3
3F2
F4
+
+
C i 3 =
8
7
6
(xn ) 2(xn )5
(x n ) (x n )
(16)
F
F2
Ci 4 = 1 8 +
7
2(x n )
(x n )
(17)